霍布斯被描繪成一位根據嚴謹的科學方法以建構其學說 的哲學家。然而史欽納（Quentin Skinner)從所謂的脈絡主義 (contextualism)觀點出發’認為綜觀霍布斯的一生’科學並非如一 般而認為地全方位決定其思想。除了科學以外，霍布斯還帶有強烈 的人文主義（humanist)色彩。這種人文主義的影響’在他晚期也是 他最成熟的著作《利維坦》(Leviathan)中表露無遺。史欽納認為’ 這種詮釋最重要的證據，在於霍布斯作品的敘事風格歷經了極明顯 的轉變：由重視論證過程的嚴謹與否，轉向強調論證影響力的修辭 (rhetoric )效果。
本文嘗試對史欽納的說法是否能有效詮釋霍布斯，提出若干 不同觀點。在認識論上，哲學家與修辭家無法被視為合成或綜合(synthesis)的概念，但是可以被視為行為者在不同的語言-遊戲
中所扮演的不同角色。因此，史欽納所謂的哲學家兼政治家，必須是 指後者。

Thomas Hobbes’ conception of scientia civilis has often been presented as if it is a straightforward application of his views about natural sciences. Quentin Skinner, according to his contextual analysis, contends that it is his humanist root rather than sciences that permeates through his later works, notably Leviathan. The most evident sign of this is Hobbes converting from science to rhetoric. This essay is to argue that Skinner’s account of Hobbes can not sustain in the epistemological terms, since it is not compatible with Hobbes’ view about free will. However, this does not prevent his argument from being valid in other terms, since in a sense rhetoric does play some pragmatic role in terms of speech-act theory. That is, Skinner’s contextual analysis can account for the extent to which Hobbes’s application of rhetoric is valid in different language-games rather than which his theory of rhetoric is compatible with philosophy in epistemological terms.